Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good morning, everyone. We're here today, as you all know, to continue clause-by-clause of Bill C-5, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

We have with us the officials, the same as the last meeting, Brenda MacKenzie, David McCauley, and Jacques Hénault. We will continue by resuming debate on clause 8.

Is there any further debate on clause 8 before we go to the vote on that clause?

I'll just give you a few seconds to take a look at that again and remind yourselves.

I'll call the vote on clauses 8 to 11.

(Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 12--No recourse)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, in clause 12, it says Editorial note: technical difficulties and "accident nucléaire" without saying what an "incident nucléaire" is. "Accident nucléaire" is defined at the beginning, but "incident nucléaire" is not defined anywhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could you please repeat that, Mr. Ouellet? The interpreter didn't catch it. Right into the microphone, please.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Sure. In clause 12, mention is made of an "incident nucléaire", but everywhere else the words "accident nucléaire" are used. The "accident nucléaire" is defined at the start of the bill, but "incident" is not. We do not know what an "incident nucléaire" is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the comment. Would anyone at the table like to comment on that?

Ms. MacKenzie.

[Brenda MacKenzie, Senior Counsel, Environment Canada, Department of Justice Canada]

Yes, the English term “nuclear incident” is in French “accident nucléaire”. The drafters inform me that the term “incident nucléaire” décrit un événement qui n'est pas aussi grave qu'un accident. On a donc choisi le mot “accident”.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

The word "incident" has been removed, it no longer exists.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

"Incident nucléaire" no longer exists in the French text.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

OK, thank you.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

It is "accident nucléaire".

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Ouellet, you've heard the explanation. Are you satisfied with that?

Are there any further comments on clause 12?

(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14--Psychological trauma)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

On line 19, I'd like to replace the word “may” with “shall”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Could we get that again, please, Mr. Bevington?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes. On page 5, line 19, I'd like to replace “may” with “shall”. It would be, “Psychological trauma suffered by a person shall be compensated”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Bevington has moved an amendment.

Are there any comments from the officials on that?

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Generally, throughout clauses 13 to 20, the word “may” has been chosen. That is the choice of words throughout.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, I need a bit more information on what the difference is going to be with that. I think “may be compensated” leaves it open. I don't know what the implications are of the requirement to compensate; I'm sure they're fairly severe. If it were to say “shall”, what does that require?

In terms of “may”, it's pretty clear that if something happens, there may or may not be compensation, but to say “shall” means you have to. What does it mean in terms of determining what the damage is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I understand. I was hoping the officials would talk about that.

[Dave McCauley, Acting Director, Uranium and Radioactive Waste Division, Department of Natural Resources]

Our view is that there really is not much difference between the use of the term “may” or “shall” in the clause.

[Brenda MacKenzie]

Just to clarify, the word “may” is used because one would have to prove causation, that in fact the psychological damage resulted as a result of other loss. So “may” is used in the sense that it would have to be proved to the court that the facts existed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

We have a list here. Madame DeBellefeuille is next.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chair, in the French text, the condition is first and foremost defined by the word "découle". I see it as more specific than the word "may" in English. So I would like to know which of the two is correct. In French, it says "if it results from" and then the conditions are listed. It is not "can" or "may", it really is "results from". In French, that seems quite clear.

I understand Mr. Bevington's question. I do not speak English, but I would be very interested to know which version is correct.